A Perfect 10

Okay, in Chapter Three, Popper must make the transition from Heraclitus to Plato, his real interest in this book. Popper used Heraclitus to establish the concept of change and its subsequent concepts of decay and destiny. As you'll see in the rest of the book, change, decay, and destiny are important concepts for historicists.

And Plato, according to Popper, is Historicist Number One. Why? Because Plato is such a central figure in Western philosophy. You just cannot understand Western thought if you don't understand Plato. He's that big, and his influence cannot be calculated. Over the last 2,500 years, most Western thinkers have either been agreeing or disagreeing with Plato, refining his ideas or undermining his ideas.

Popper says that Plato accepted Heraclitus' view that reality was in a state of flux, or change, and that "all social change is corruption or decay or degeneration" (19), but Plato differed from Heraclitus in one important respect: "Plato believed that the law of historical destiny, the law of decay, can be broken by the moral will of man, supported by the power of human reason" (20). In other words, Plato believed that under the right conditions a people could reverse the decay in their society and return to a perfect State, a Golden Age.

As he developed his philosophy, Plato extended his belief in a perfect, unchanging State to a belief in a perfect, unchanging World of Forms, or Ideas. This is a key idea in Plato's philosophy, and it says basically that every kind of thing in this various, changing world has a perfect, unchanging, eternal Form from which the corrupted thing follows. Thus, for the class of thing called men, there exists a perfect Man, the uncorrupted, eternal, Form or Idea of the corrupted, changing, temporal men that we encounter day-to-day. Common men, then, are just more-or-less imperfect copies of the one, perfect Man, the Idea. Likewise with all other things: women, tables, mountains, fires, cats, dreams, thoughts, wines, governments, armies, and so on. Each of these things is the corrupted child of a perfect parent, the Woman, Table, Mountain, Fire, and so on.

Popper then makes an important point: while both the historicist and the piecemeal engineer want to create a better human world, they go about it in different ways. The historicist looks backward to discover the characteristics, or essence, of the perfect Man, and then tries to make all men in that image. The piecemeal engineer, by contrast, looks forward to guess what might help the men we have to live better lives and then tries to build structures that encourage that kind of behavior.

Can you think of any current images of the perfect Man or Woman and how we are all pressed to fit that mold? Does the perfect Man or Woman exist? Are you sure? Why or why not? And how do people, organizations, and governments use their power to try to make us fit the model of the perfect Man or Woman? Is that pressure to conform an aspect of the Open Society or of the Closed? What can we do about this? Should we thank Plato for this idea? or curse him?

Finding a Topic

It seems to me that you guys are still struggling with finding a topic. Let's look at the situation.

There is no topic that you cannot relate to our class discussion. For instance, let's say you have a paper due in another class–a history class. Use that paper for this class also, but connect it to Popper's discussion of the open society. If your paper is about the French Revolution, then rework the paper to show how the French were helping or hindering the creation of an open society. If your paper is about biology, show how the science works better or worse with open inquiry rather than closed inquiry. If your other paper is about business, then talk about the workings of an open market rather than a closed market. In other words, use Popper's, Heraclitus', and Plato's ideas to rework and to clarify your own thinking about your other subject. Recycle your other paper for this class. That's smart and efficient.

But perhaps you don't want to write about your other classes, then write about one of the ideas in Popper's book: how change works in your life or in society, the idea of destiny and a liberal arts education (after all, GCSU is Georgia's public Liberal Arts college–what does THAT mean?), should college dorms be open or closed (using Popper's definitions), what was America's Golden Age and do you want to return to it, how and why does the religious right frame change as bad and as a falling away, should your family have something to say about who you marry and, thus, bring into the family or should that be your decision alone, should the college curriculum be open or closed?

I must confess that I am confused by your struggle over finding a topic. I just don't understand, so I want you to help me understand your dilemma so that I can help you out of it.

Are you anxious that you will pick a bad topic? Well, there is no such thing as a bad topic. There are only topics that a writer treats skillfully and well, or sloppily and not so well.

Perhaps you have no real interest in politics? No problem. Write about whatever you are interested in. Really. Anything. I don't know of any topic that cannot be connected back to our discussion of frames and open societies. Like cartoons? That works. How do cartoons function in an open society? Fascinating paper. Like fashion? That works, too. Can you have a real sense of fashion in a closed society?

Perhaps you have no real interest in anything in life. Well, now you do have a problem, and I can't help you with it. You need spiritual and psychiatric counseling, and this is the wrong class for you. So either go get counseling quickly, wiki-wiki, or just fake it.

Communication in Society

IDST 2215, Spring 2007

Mon/Wed, 5:30-7:20 p.m., Rm 368

Instructor: Dr. Keith Hamon
Office: No on-Campus office hours

Phone: 478.994.7071
E-Mail: keith.hamon@gmail.com

Course Description:
IDST 2215 introduces students to the strategies and structures of communications within a modern society. The course helps students

• join the lively and scholarly discussion of modern communications, especially the concepts of frames and open societies;
• compose organized, clear, and purposeful prose;
• use writing and discussion as modes of learning;
• grasp the purpose and methods of research; and
• make formal and persuasive presentations to their colleagues.

Required Texts:

• Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.
• Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant.
• McQuail, McQuail's Mass Communication Theory.

Attendance:

• IDST 2215 is a classroom and online discussion, so show up and talk.

Evaluation:

• Spoken conversation:
  
• formal: a 10 minute classroom presentation and
  
• informal: classroom chatter.
  
• Written conversation:
  
• formal: three papers
• Paper 1, 3 pages max, no outside resources,
• Paper 2, 5 pages max, outside resources required, and
• Paper 3, 7 pages max, outside resources required with MLA documentation.
  
• informal: online chatter, especially IDST 2215 blog and peer collaboration.
• To complete this course, you must submit all work.
• Grades will be assigned as follows:

A: Demonstrates excellence
B: Demonstrates competence
C: Suggests competence
D: Suggests incompetence
F:Demonstrates incompetence

Assignment Schedule:
Jan 08/10 Introduction.
Jan 15/17 MLK HOLIDAY, Lakoff, Don't Think of an Elephant, Ch 1-2, McQuail, Ch 1, eMail Due.
Jan 22/24 Lakoff, Ch 3-4, McQuail, Ch 3.
Jan 29/31 Lakoff, Ch 5-6, McQuail, Ch 4.
Feb 05/07 Lakoff, Ch 7-8, Paper 1 Due.
Feb 12/14 Popper, The Open Society, Intro & Ch 1.
Feb 19/21 Popper, Ch 2.
Feb 26/28 Popper, Ch 3.
Mar 05/07 Popper, Ch 4, Paper 2 Due.
Mar 12/14 Popper, Ch 5.
Mar 19/21 Popper, Ch 6.
Mar 26/28 SPRING BREAK
Apr 02/04 Popper, Ch 7.
Apr 09/11 Popper, Ch 8, Paper 3 Due.
Apr 16/18 Popper, Ch 9.
Apr 23/25 Popper, Ch 10.
Apr 30/01 Popper, Ch 10.

More Change

Popper finds in Heraclitus more aspects of historicism that are developed later in Plato's philosophy and that have become a staple of historicist thinking.

First, historicists often confuse "legal laws or norms on the one hand and natural laws or regularities on the other" (14, 15). The laws of gravity and motion and the laws against murder and theft are not the same kind of laws. Gravity and motion are natural regularities that cannot be violated. Murder and theft are man-made conventions that quite obviously can be violated and often are. You don't have to enforce the law of gravity, but you do have to enforce the law against murder. Later in the book, Popper will suggest that we call natural laws laws and legal laws norms. Can you think of examples in current debate where people confuse natural laws and legal norms?

This confusion often leads historicists to uncover the laws of change, which they will often talk about as if they were natural laws and not man-made norms. Thus, Karl Marx might talk about the laws of economics which were at work to bring about the inevitable victory of the working class in the perfect communist state. Can you think of any laws/norms that people claim today are driving the way society works and history is unfolding?

Then, Popper notes that "historicist ideas easily become prominent in times of great social change" (17). It seems that when life becomes unstable and threatening, then people want the reassurance of reliable laws that will inevitably return life to a more stable, secure, and pleasant Golden Age. Can you think of any instability in current life that prompts people to seek haven in a set of laws that promise stability and security? Let us know.

The Times They Are A'Changing

In Chapter 2 of The Open Society, Popper begins his inquiry into the roots of historicism with Heraclitus. For Popper, the key element in Heraclitus' philosophy is the idea of change. Prior to Heraclitus, Greeks "had viewed the world as a huge edifice … a structure which was considered to be fundamentally static," or unchanging. Heraclitus, on the other hand, "visualized the world not as an edifice, but rather as one colossal process" that was constantly in flux. Without the possibility of change in the way the natural and human universe works, then historicism is not possible, because if humans are incapable of changing the way society works, then what's the point of trying? Most ancient people, then, simply couldn't imagine that their lives and societies could be any different, so they accepted their status as slave, worker, warrior, or ruler without question. Heraclitus changed all that.

It seems to me that there are two ideas that follow from this concept of change that Popper finds particularly relevant to historicism. Like any modern scientist, Popper agrees with Heraclitus that the universe is constantly changing, like a fire, which is Heraclitus' rather poetic expression of the modern Einsteinian universe with its ebb and flow of energy in all its various forms, including matter and us.

The first idea that historicism develops from change is that most change is degenerative. Historicists typically view change as a fall from the ideal and perfect order to the chaotic and evil. Plato in particular will take this view, as we shall see. Reflect for a moment on your own experience with this idea of change as bad, as a Fall from Grace. What experience have you had with the notion that things are getting worse? that things used to be better? that society is going to Hell in a handbasket? What is the core Judeo-Christian story that embodies this idea of the Fall?

The second big idea for Popper is that of destiny. Historicists believe that their people have a destiny to fulfill. This destiny unfolds in history, drives toward some kind of exalted position for this group of people (often inheritance of or domination over the entire Earth), and is ignored by the people at great peril. The very survival of the people usually depends on winning their destiny. Of course, as we shall see, this threat of annihilation for failing to achieve the group's destiny gives the historicist great power over his people. Again, reflect on your experiences with destiny. Does your family have a destiny? Do you have a destiny? Does the United States have a destiny? Which of these destinies are you willing to sacrifice everything for? What are the consequences for failing to achieve your personal or group destinies? What is the core Christian story that embodies this idea of destiny?

If you understand how the ideas of a Fall and a Destiny work in human lives, then you will begin to understand why Popper opposes them. You may not agree with Popper, but you will understand him, and you'll understand yourself even better. That's real learning.

Let me hear from you before we meet for class. Thanks.

Intro to Popper's The Open Society

Well, I see that I've been a very bad boy. I haven't posted to this blog in a week, but then perhaps we've all been busy enough with the papers. I hope so.

Anyway, I want to give some thoughts about reading Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies. As I've mentioned before, this is not such an easy book to read, and you'll have to be very mindful as you start to dig into it.

Remember in class we discussed the communications triangle, like this:


The triangle says that if you want to understand any given text, then you must understand its context, or its frame. If you don't know the context, then you cannot reliably understand the text. Thus, to understand the book Don't Think of an Elephant!, you must know something about George Lakoff, you must know his reader, and you must know what his general topic is. You must determine what role Lakoff is assuming and what role he expects of his readers, and most importantly, you must know what response he expects from his readers. And usually, you must know all of this very soon in the book, or else you are likely to misinterpret what the book is trying to say to you. The more you know about Lakoff, the more you know about his readers, and the more you know about his topic, then the more you will understand of his book.

This is the case with Popper's The Open Society. Very early in this book, you should try to figure out the author. Lakoff is a linguist and cognitive scientist and a political progressive who has studied cognitive frames and can speak with authority about them, but who is Popper? What's his background? Is he qualified to write this stuff? What was his time period? What were his concerns? What was going on that led him to write?

Then you should try to figure out the readers. Lakoff is writing to American progressives who are tired of being defeated by American conservatives, but who is Popper's audience? Why would they be interested in Popper and what he has to say? Are they willing to listen to him? Do they trust him? have faith in him? believe him?

Then you should try to figure out what problem Popper is dealing with. Lakoff started his study trying to figure out the frames that conservatives and progressives use to form their political opinions. What problem led Popper to write his book? What is Popper trying to figure out? What is it that Popper thinks he knows that his readers should also know?

Finally, you should try to figure out what response Popper is looking for. Lakoff wants progressives to learn their frames and to use their frames to promote progressive policies. What does Popper want his readers to do, to say, to think, to believe, to feel, or to imagine after they read his book? If you don't know what Popper is after, then you can't tell if he got there.

Think on these things. I'll be interested to see the ideas you start forming. Be sure to point to specific quotes from the book that support your opinions.